A conservative analysis of The Powers That Be

A conservative analysis of The Powers That Be

I recognize that I am in the midst of a vast system of social organizing (governing, influence, behavior control, mind control, propaganda, etc). Recognizing the dominant influence of the Latin language within the field of law (as well as medicine), I accept that the Roman Empire is a primary source or root out of which branches the system in my midst.

The local court systems and the coercive power of their armies (the sheriff deputies, “police state” police, DHS agents, etc) seem worthy of great respect to me, including due to the effectiveness of their well-coordinated acts of violence. I also respect the private commercial interests that organize court systems and direct the officers of the court systems in the governing of the masses through organized coercion. Those foundational influences include lobbyists and “the intelligence community” and, last but not least, the official lawmakers who revise laws of statutory code and constitutional amendments and so on.

I respect the ancient premise of Sun Tzu that “war is the art of deception.” I further assert that governing is a form of warfare to influence the activity of the domestic population, including to produce the steady flow of tribute payments or protection money or tithes or taxes or involuntary membership fees. Governments are fundamentally commercial enterprises for the involuntary transfer of wealth toward a small group in power (like parasites) from a huge set of sources (like hosts or chattel livestock or slaves).

In feudalism, the transfer of wealth is from the peasants to the monarchs and aristocrats. In communism, it is from the masses to the central control bureaucrats. The two systems are identical at their core, differing mostly in labels and minor details such as the extent of the imperial piracy, with communism extending the basic system of involuntary wealth redistribution to include not just thousands of “donors,” but millions.

As for the innovation of modern currency and banking systems, I respect that in the absence of some court system of organized coercion, there is no other backing to any currency. When the system of organized coercion Doing Business As the Confederacy ceased to function and stopped requiring the payment of taxes in their currency, then their currency became worthless (except for sentimentality as a collector’s item or historical artifact).

I recognize that the favored religions within this system present ideological models of language that champion the use of material rewards and punishment to influence the behavior of the masses, such as the myth of Santa Claus. Likewise, I recognize the idea of a possible future heaven as an effective “bribe” to keep the masses behaving as “good boys” and “good girls” so that they will (allegedly) earn the favors of “the Real Santa Claus” when they die.

This is an especially effective myth to instill in soldiers to influence them to willingly sacrifice their lives through acts of violence that are, more or less, “suicidal.” Killing to earn the favors of the Great Santa Claus is also presented as heroic and patriotic, whether with bombs or sanctions that starve the masses or with a lethal injection in a criminal justice ritual of human sacrifice.

Who tells us what is heroic and patriotic (or treasonous/treachery)? We are trained by those who rule us, who regulate our perceptions, our interpretations and our actions. Language is a primary tool of theirs.

For instance, certain behavior patterns are presented as sinful or evil or shameful or “what should not be” or criminal or unjust. Those may be the ones that the leaders of the Roman system wish to discourage the masses from practicing, perhaps to maintain a near monopoly on those methods (as well as to avoid domestic turmoil, as in the case of rampant adultery or ). These systems of behavior control may ultimately be for the organized inequitable redistribution of affluence away from the taxpayers (underwriters) toward the tax collectors and whatever recipients are chosen by the powers that be (such as for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, for the indoctrination programming of the public school systems, for the building of roads, and for the promotion of certain dietary practices and health care practices through MDs, the licensed agents of the state).

Quite naturally, all of the operations of any particular state promote the national interest, the national security, the welfare of the state. What diet is promoted? That which promotes the interests of the state. What medical procedures are promoted? Those which promote the interests of the state. What is prohibited or punished? That which is deemed to threaten the interests of the state.

Does it promote the interests of the state to present mythology about the nature of the state? If so, such mythology will be invented and disseminated through schools, media, and the entertainment industry (movies, books, music, etc).

Who defines “the interests of the state?” No one in particular defines the interests of any particular state or of the entire Roman imperial network.

However, if a single figurehead were to be identified, clearly the apparent leader of the Roman imperial system is the Pharoah, who is known within the Vatican system as the Pope. Papal decrees publicize the official interests (dictates) of the Holy Roman Empire.

Cover of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To the extent that the papacy may be just a public priesthood guided by private interests, I would add that the bureaucratic center of commercial influence in modern times is the Bank for International Settlements, the hub of the central banking system. Further, we can recognize the United Nations as a relatively new public bureaucracy (less than 100 years old) to promote global uniformity.

Ultimately, all empires are subject to being influenced by anyone. Indeed, it may be practically impossible for someone not to influence the future of the empire. Either one acts as an underwriter or as a beneficiary (or both). Either one guides the empire or resists the empire.

One may even attempt to establish one’s own system of involuntary wealth redistribution (piracy) within the claimed jurisdiction of an empire, such as a new cartel of gangsters. However, those who participate in non-imperial piracy may be typically targeted either for eradication or a corporate merger (an alliance or contract work for the empire). Indeed, in most cases, offers for a partnership may be accompanied by implicit threats to eradicate those who fail to accept an offered contract, so as to make the coercion more efficient, more intimidating.

Pirates who do not pay their tribute may be targeted for prosecution. Further, officers of an empire whose loyalty is in question by superiors may be targeted for prosecution even without having any direct involvement in piracy. Accusations and evidence can be concocted. Those who control the media have the capacity to influence public perception.

Further, when a high-ranking pirate is identified and prosecuted and convicted, such as Lt. Colonel Ollie North, then the local agent of the empire has the authority to grant a fully legal pardon to the loyal pirate who has been prosecuted and convicted. A presidential pardon can be signed at the end of the term of an outgoing President. If that President does not want to sign, they can be removed from office or, even simpler, the media can simply be issued press releases from a higher authority than the US President to report that a Presidential pardon has been granted.

Control of the media is important. Local governing officials (such as the kings under the Holy Roman Empire or the various Presidents of various nations) must be made aware of the power that the media has over the public. This is very important in securing the loyalty of the governing official to the Empire. Local governing officials must be occasionally reminded of what happens when an old friend of the Empire is widely publicized as being an enemy of the Empire, such as Saddam Hussein or Khadifi or Noriega or Bin Laden or even Ollie North. Who could be more loyal to the “good old boys network” than Ollie North?